What would you like to be our major goals in space

In sci.space.policy message
, Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:26:30,
Terrell Miller wrote:

The rule of thumb I've heard is that anywhere with a latitude higher than
~33 degrees (i.e. anything north of Gibraltar, Baghdad, Shanghai, Nagasaki,
Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix and LA, or south of Sydney, Cape Town and Buenos
Aires) isn't suitable for heat-pump use. That leaves out a good chunk of the
world's population, a lot of folks who live too far away from teh equator
for heat pumps to be efficient, and a lot more that live so close to teh
equator that they don't often need a heat pump in the first place.


That's an unreasonable statement.

The winter climate of inland North America above any given latitude is
matched in Western Europe (most of which is not so very far from the
Atlantic and Gulf Stream effects) only at a considerably higher
latitude.

Europe is mostly well-populated up to about 60-65 degrees North, terrain
permitting; in the Americas the population thins out considerably, on
average, above around 50 degrees N.

Rule of Thumb : a Rule of Thumb used in North America applies elsewhere
only by chance.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. /
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:16:43 +0000, in a place far, far away, Dr J R
Stockton made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The rule of thumb I've heard is that anywhere with a latitude higher than
~33 degrees (i.e. anything north of Gibraltar, Baghdad, Shanghai, Nagasaki,
Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix and LA, or south of Sydney, Cape Town and Buenos
Aires) isn't suitable for heat-pump use. That leaves out a good chunk of the
world's population, a lot of folks who live too far away from teh equator
for heat pumps to be efficient, and a lot more that live so close to teh
equator that they don't often need a heat pump in the first place.


That's an unreasonable statement.

The winter climate of inland North America above any given latitude is
matched in Western Europe (most of which is not so very far from the
Atlantic and Gulf Stream effects) only at a considerably higher
latitude.

Europe is mostly well-populated up to about 60-65 degrees North, terrain
permitting; in the Americas the population thins out considerably, on
average, above around 50 degrees N.

Until the Gulf Stream shuts down...

Rule of Thumb : a Rule of Thumb used in North America applies elsewhere
only by chance.

It's one that applies pretty much everywhere except Europe, which is
the exception that makes the rule of thumb.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Electricity is usually noncompetitive for heating. There can be
local exceptions, but the general rule is that burning fossil
fuels is cheaper. Heck, burning *biomass* is often cheaper.

Heat pumps have high capital cost, which offsets much of the
economic gain from the efficiency improvement. You usually
see them in places where so little heating is required you
just make the A/C dual purpose.

Where I've lived (central Indiana and southern Ohio) heat pumps aren't
*that* uncommon. My dad's house still has one (and the one before that).
But it does get cold enough around here that they need an "emergency"
heating option for when the temperature drops so low the heat pump simply
can't pull enough heat out of the outside air to heat the home. That
usually means either resistive electric heating (which is expensive) or it
means natural gas, which seems kind of silly when today's (more expensive)
natural gas furnaces are so efficient.

That said, heat pumps seem to be dropping out of favor around here. New
houses usually have AC paired with a natural gas furnace. Cheaper new
construction homes usually get less efficient furnaces and slightly
undersized one speed (less efficient) AC compressors.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 01:08:05 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

With 100 km range, they barely get a lot of us to work and back each
day. Why the hell would I want to pay a premium for something that
limited?

Most people don't do 100km per day. The average mileage in the UK is
about 6000 miles per year, or about 18 miles per day.

What happens in the UK is completely irrelevant to what happens in the
US. (Hint: look at a freakin' map of the two countries, particularly
the western US. Make sure you pay attention to the scale.)

That is a fairly common attitude in America. "What happens outside my
town is completely irrelevant to me."

No, our attitude is that people in the UK are apparently clueless
about how far apart things are here, and that UK solutions won't
necessarily work here..

Don't start a debate about who (Americans or someone else) knows less
about the world. It's off topic, and there's only one winner. America
and Americans have lots of good points, but knowledge of the rest of
the world isn't one them.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

I suggest you don't know what the **** you're talking about. My
commute is probably longer than the city average but much shorter than
the average of the several thousand folks who work where I do.

I'm surprised

On 11 Dec 2006 13:57:49 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That is a fairly common attitude in America. "What happens outside my
town is completely irrelevant to me."

No, our attitude is that people in the UK are apparently clueless
about how far apart things are here, and that UK solutions won't
necessarily work here..

Don't start a debate about who (Americans or someone else) knows less
about the world. It's off topic, and there's only one winner. America
and Americans have lots of good points, but knowledge of the rest of
the world isn't one them.

I wasn't discussing American cluelessness--I was discussing UKian
cluelessness. The difference is that, unlike many Europeans, most
Americans don't pretend to know things about other countries that they
don't.

On 11 Dec 2006 14:05:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Fred J. McCall wrote:

I suggest you don't know what the **** you're talking about. My
commute is probably longer than the city average but much shorter than
the average of the several thousand folks who work where I do.

I'm surprised

Then consider all the other things that you think you know about this
country that you might be "surprised" about.

Alex Terrell wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Dec 2006 14:44:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Alex Terrell" wrote:

:
:Or perhaps more optimistically, the future of batteries. Even if
:batteries don't progress significantly from current status, they're
:still good enough (if not yet cheap enough) to make Plug in Hybrids a
:winner. With 100km range, that would pretty much halve fossil fuel
:consumption in the USA. More than halve it in Europe.

With 100 km range, they barely get a lot of us to work and back each
day. Why the hell would I want to pay a premium for something that
limited?

Most people don't do 100km per day. The average mileage in the UK is
about 6000 miles per year, or about 18 miles per day.

What happens in the UK is completely irrelevant to what happens in the
US. (Hint: look at a freakin' map of the two countries, particularly
the western US. Make sure you pay attention to the scale.)

That is a fairly common attitude in America. "What happens outside my
town is completely irrelevant to me."

Rand is common and an American, but don't confuse him with being any
sort of spokesman for the country. In short he's no PJ O'Rourke or Will
Rogers.

Eric

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:57:49 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That is a fairly common attitude in America. "What happens outside my
town is completely irrelevant to me."

No, our attitude is that people in the UK are apparently clueless
about how far apart things are here, and that UK solutions won't
necessarily work here..

Don't start a debate about who (Americans or someone else) knows less
about the world. It's off topic, and there's only one winner. America
and Americans have lots of good points, but knowledge of the rest of
the world isn't one them.

I wasn't discussing American cluelessness--I was discussing UKian
cluelessness. The difference is that, unlike many Europeans, most
Americans don't pretend to know things about other countries that they
don't.

They say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You've found the
solution to this problem.

As your former Defence secretary might put it, other countries are
unknown unknowns.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:11:47 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Electricity is usually noncompetitive for heating. There can be
local exceptions, but the general rule is that burning fossil
fuels is cheaper. Heck, burning *biomass* is often cheaper.

Heat pumps have high capital cost, which offsets much of the
economic gain from the efficiency improvement. You usually
see them in places where so little heating is required you
just make the A/C dual purpose.

Yup. Welcome to south Florida.

Which sucks, because it means that I can't have a gas stove, unless I
want to a tank in the yard. There's zero gas infrastructure here,
other than delivery.

Gee, do you think that hurricanes have anything to do with that? Sort
of like bitching about no basements in California.

Eric